cturnr

AdderXYU

apoehler wrote:Doesn't this seem somewhat close to infringing? Lucasfilm is notoriously not thrilled about unlicensed use of its properties and this does straight-up use the image of a Lucasfilm character, not even hidden or anything. What are the guidelines for this sort of thing?

I highly recommend anyone interested to ask Lucasarts directly. Maybe wait for the weekend tho, so you can ask two questions at once.

SerLoras

Waveman wrote:I came to check the comments, wondering if I was the only one who thought this.

The drawing could be considered a derivative work, meaning that at first blush, it might be copyright infringement.

However, American copyright law has a concept called "fair use" which allows people to use another person's copyright without permission, so long as it falls into certain categories. One of these categories is a parody. To me, this seems like a parody, but I am not the arbiter of such things.

However, another issue would be trademark. I have no doubt that Lucas TM-ed Akbar's likeness. I don't know American TM law that well, but the more something is confusingly similar to a TM - to the point where customers may be confused as to the source of goods - the more likley you will be found to be infringing. However, I don't know if Lucas used the Akbar TM in a legal sense (i.e., as a mark that identifies the source of wares).

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO THINK ANY MORE MAYBE THIS WHOLE THING IS A TRAP.

AdderXYU

A one note song would be a song with one note. It would never change. No matter what you did rhythmically, it would get boring and useless and only people fooling themselves would really see worth in it.

A one-note reference would be the same. the reference has no depth, no intrigue. It's there to sell, not to parody or to comment on something or showcase one's own creativity. Star wars references are as much "art" at this point as tracing a picture from a Mickey Mouse colouring book. Not only are the characters not yours, but you're not even doing something original with them. Which basically sums up CanTeeNaFury and, slowly but surely, the same is becoming true of woot.

AdderXYU

SerLoras wrote:The drawing could be considered a derivative work, meaning that at first blush, it might be copyright infringement.

However, American copyright law has a concept called "fair use" which allows people to use another person's copyright without permission, so long as it falls into certain categories. One of these categories is a parody. To me, this seems like a parody, but I am not the arbiter of such things.

However, another issue would be trademark. I have no doubt that Lucas TM-ed Akbar's likeness. I don't know American TM law that well, but the more something is confusingly similar to a TM - to the point where customers may be confused as to the source of goods - the more likley you will be found to be infringing. However, I don't know if Lucas used the Akbar TM in a legal sense (i.e., as a mark that identifies the source of wares).

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO THINK ANY MORE MAYBE THIS WHOLE THING IS A TRAP.

tl;dr - George Lucas will put a horse's head in your bed tonight.

The other thing to remember is "fair use" is an argument, not a law, and not a right. Just like I can say I was at my grandmother's house even though 8 witnesses saw me snuffleupagus and kill a bus full of people, someone can shout PARODY FAIR USE without it being so.

On a piece like this, it's hard to say. I've said before, this is a million steps ahead of its ilk, in that there's at least a punchline, and not a mashup where Ackbar is, say, in the obama hope poster. that scaffolding is not remotely art, because it's only about selling two references. consider why teefury would possibly take their archive down. But the fact is that Lucas is well known for being overly litigious. He'd have every right to come after a parody, especially compared to some of what he's attacked. And honestly, I'm 100% for it. Parody is wonderful when done well, but you can't just slap someone's IP on a shirt, or likeness on a shirt, and call it fair use. No matter what someone like Jimiyo says.

Because some of us remember Jimiyo complaining about how clients were forcing him to rip other people's styles and designs, and boosting his price astronomically so he'd be dropped so he wouldn't have to be that rip-off. For a guy who would fight to get out of exploiting someone else's art for his own financial gain, he sure is OK with people exploiting other people's property for their own financial gain! Star Wars is no less art than the Mona Lisa, in its own way. Except one actually still has a copyright which can be enforced.

RaveDroid

Not that I really have an opinion either way on the 'legality' of this particular design, but a couple of thoughts could be... Lucas, LucasFilm et al. by now surely has enough money that any profit from this design or other derivative of his original work would be considered too insignificant in comparison to his billion$ for him to even worry about whether or not it's an encroachment on his IP.

Also, another thought may be that any kind of small-scale merchandising such as this could only help to further the popularity and exposure of his series (as if it needs more, lol). It's not like his franchise revenue is going to suffer because of a market of this narrow a scope (i.e. shirt.woot and the like) - and, seriously, as we know that's all he really cares about anyway at this point.

If you can read this, ｙｏｕｒﾠｂｒｏｗｓｅｒ＇ｓﾠＣｏｍｐａｔｉｂｉｌｉｔｙﾠｓｅｔｔｉｎｇｓ
ａｒｅﾠｃｏｎｆｉｇｕｒｅｄﾠｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｌｙ.ﾠﾠﾂ

AdderXYU

RaveDroid wrote:Not that I really have an opinion either way on the 'legality' of this particular design, but a couple of thoughts could be... Lucas, LucasFilm et al. by now surely has enough money that any profit from this design or other derivative of his original work would be considered too insignificant in comparison to his billion$ for him to even worry about whether or not it's an encroachment on his IP.

Also, another thought may be that any kind of small-scale merchandising such as this could only help to further the popularity and exposure of his series (as if it needs more, lol). It's not like his franchise revenue is going to suffer because of a market of this narrow a scope (i.e. shirt.woot and the like) - and, seriously, as we know that's all he really cares about anyway at this point.

Just last year, Threadless pulled at least two Star Wars parodies out of its catalog. One was a long-running, popular, truly original parody. There was no reason to pull it outside of legal worries.

Lucas can't get EVERYTHING. No one can. But I for one would welcome a good round of litigation around the artwebs. I think that if people started thinking about every piece they designed as "what does this say about ME," and "how much of ME is in this," as well as "how would I feel if this beat my own work in a contest" or "how would I feel if someone used a piece of mine in a derivative work like this", the art world would approve immensely. I love a lot of today's artist's work. It just makes me sad to see one more creative, talented, yet underappreciated designer take the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach. It only snowballs things.

RaveDroid

AdderXYU wrote:Just last year, Threadless pulled at least two Star Wars parodies out of its catalog. One was a long-running, popular, truly original parody. There was no reason to pull it outside of legal worries.

Hmmm... I've been a Threadless fan for a good several years now, and I don't seem to remember ever coming across any Star Wars parody designs they had been selling (or maybe it just wasn't quite as obvious), any way you could point me to the design(s) to which you're referring? I'd be interested to see how they compare to a design like this one as far as coinciding with the franchise.

If you can read this, ｙｏｕｒﾠｂｒｏｗｓｅｒ＇ｓﾠＣｏｍｐａｔｉｂｉｌｉｔｙﾠｓｅｔｔｉｎｇｓ
ａｒｅﾠｃｏｎｆｉｇｕｒｅｄﾠｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｌｙ.ﾠﾠﾂ

KaylaJ

RaveDroid wrote:Not that I really have an opinion either way on the 'legality' of this particular design, but a couple of thoughts could be... Lucas, LucasFilm et al. by now surely has enough money that any profit from this design or other derivative of his original work would be considered too insignificant in comparison to his billion$ for him to even worry about whether or not it's an encroachment on his IP.

but in all seriousness, even though its worth billions or more, lucasfilm does not let things slip by easily. they've sued p-o-r-n (damn woot filter) companies and dr dre (dre had used the thx sound which was the first sound copyrighted on one of his albums ironically after getting on napster's case for pirating).

google "lucasfilm" and "lawsuit" and check it out. luckily it seems like the lawyers are pretty nice and let you cease before getting onto your case in most parts

ke4sfq

enormatron wrote:Oh man, I remember when "It's a trap!" jokes were still funny, like 3 years ago. And yet, this shirt still sold out. What next, woot, another Portal shirt, or maybe a Rickroll, OR LOLCATS?

zenith828

kylelmccoy

My thought on the whole IP issue would be that if Lucas' lawyers saw this and found it to be an issue, they would have been on Woot about it at 1215 this morning. It would have taken Woot 10 minutes to find out that it was actually Lucas' guys, and by 1230 the shirt would be nothing but a memory - With Woot's tail between it's legs issuing refunds and apologies out the yin-yang.

Or since the Admiral is old news, he could just not care anymore - enough people could say "who is that?" to drive them to the video store or Target to watch the movie and hence, free advertising.

As far as parody goes -(edit) In other words, you know Mad Magazine isn't a Lucas product, whereas you might think the shirt, at first glance, is.

Either Lucasfilm just doesn't care, or Woot needs to check it's spam filter for a message.

AdderXYU

bitserve wrote:I had assumed that Woot licensed/cleared stuff like this and the cookie monster binging one. Why would anyone assume that they were printing these illegally?

Because they are?

Parody is a legal defense. One woot would use if anyone came up to them on these sorts of tees, and one they'd hope would hold up in court. These are not officially licensed tees. Why would Sesame Street license their wholesome character as an addict?

If you see a reference like this or the binge or whatever on any site, not just woot, it is never going to be officially licensed.

RaveDroid wrote:Hmmm... I've been a Threadless fan for a good several years now, and I don't seem to remember ever coming across any Star Wars parody designs they had been selling (or maybe it just wasn't quite as obvious), any way you could point me to the design(s) to which you're referring? I'd be interested to see how they compare to a design like this one as far as coinciding with the franchise.

Seriously?

If you can still find records of "Dark side of the Garden" (a Glennz tee, as I recall), that would be one of them. I don't know if it's even still in their catalog tho.

I'm pretty sure they currently have some far more esoteric references to the movie on sale as well. I find it hard to believe you've never seen ANY there. They just don't shove it in your face like teefury would.

HobbitofUC

If you can still find records of "Dark side of the Garden" (a Glennz tee, as I recall), that would be one of them. I don't know if it's even still in their catalog tho.

I'm pretty sure they currently have some far more esoteric references to the movie on sale as well. I find it hard to believe you've never seen ANY there. They just don't shove it in your face like teefury would.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.